Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Playing in local tournaments, I love the idea of a TO patrolling by tables, correcting as they go.

In practice however I find that a less than fair management of time occurs... The top tables / the TO's friends having the most time and attention put in by the policing person. I've even seen a TO purposely stand over the top table arguing for the player against the other, just to prove his point.

So it sounds great on paper, and if you can pull it off great job and when is your next tourney? but unfortunately unless you have ref's and/or are The Flash, I think it would unfairly unbalance the state of the tournament, not to mention put you out of breath.

olympia wrote:If you are passing by a game and you hear an Ork player claim that his mob of 10 boyz is fearless there is no need for an impartial person. The ork player is simply wrong and should be corrected promptly.

That's nice. But if we open the door to allow every random person to start commenting and offering unsolicited vigilante judging on tournament games we have a serious problem potentially much larger that an ork unit that shouldn't be fearless. If you hear that and you're at one of my tournaments and his opponent isn't objecting I would recommend calling a judge over and getting it corrected that way. It solves the problem just the same.

Otherwise we open a Pandoras box of allowing players to arbitrarily shout people down on rules whenever they find it convenient. This might be efficient sometimes, and it might also cause a lot more problems than it's worth. Either you want an orderly tournament environment or you can have a chaotic one where everyone gets to talk about everyone's games within earshot while the games are underway. I'm speaking in extreme examples of course but the former is much more conducive to fair play than the latter which is fertile ground for all sorts of shenanigans.

I think there is usually a fairly clear and easily-recognized line between giving information on rules and giving tactical advice/inappropriate kibitzing.

I've been in a lot of tournaments where players ask other players for clarification, or passers-by volunteer info when two players are verbally unsure about a rule.

I think the idea that the tournament will devolve into shouting or chaos or talking about everyone's games if we don't make a strict rule against it seems improbable. IME the vast majority of players have the modicum of social skills needed to avoid this without being told.

That said, I do think it's worth reminding folks (especially new gamers) occasionally that kibitzing and interfering with the play of a game is inappropriate; while still allowing polite exchange of info about rules.

Mannahnin wrote:I think there is usually a fairly clear and easily-recognized line between giving information on rules and giving tactical advice/inappropriate kibitzing.

I've been in a lot of tournaments where players ask other players for clarification, or passers-by volunteer info when two players are verbally unsure about a rule.

I think the idea that the tournament will devolve into shouting or chaos or talking about everyone's games if we don't make a strict rule against it seems improbable. IME the vast majority of players have the modicum of social skills needed to avoid this without being told.

That said, I do think it's worth reminding folks (especially new gamers) occasionally that kibitzing and interfering with the play of a game is inappropriate; while still allowing polite exchange of info about rules.

I agree common sense is also at stake here. Note my sentiment was about unsolicited advice only. If players are asking questions or looking for rules prompts to anyone standing nearby commenting is a bit different than simply walking up to a table and "helping" without being invited to.

Players who ask for clarifications should be answered.

As a TO I see more misinterpreted scenarios than game playing rules violations. Like if the scenario calls for a corner deployment and they are deploying on the long board edge or objectives that can't be placed within 12" of a board edge. I'll call those out right away. They are always a simple mistake

These guidelines have helped me run events smoothly:

Establish dominance early: Demand army lists and adhere to a timeline so you can review the lists thoroughly.

If you have assistants, pregame the metagame and anticipate scenarios that may arise and arrive at a consensus...nothing undermines an event faster than a lack of solidarity amongst the TO/ ref staff.

Never provide Tactical advice, don't play the game for them. If a question is asked as I pass and a "...I dunno" is uttered, i'll provide a possible solution.

Silence the aggressive tourney player: We have seen, heard or encountered these players before. Aggresive in speech and manner, speaking with authority and dismissive of outside opinion. There is a difference in playing to win and being aggressive.

Kevin Nash wrote:If you hear that and you're at one of my tournaments and his opponent isn't objecting I would recommend calling a judge over and getting it corrected that way.

The problem is, at least with the judge/TO-to-player-ratio at the small tournies I've been to, there might not be some instantly free to make that call. If the opponent didn't object, they probably went ahead with the charge or whatever, and will be far enough along once the judge arrives that it will not matter that you called him over / be too late for him to do anything.

That said, I agree 100% with Mannahnin's post above, and with most of yours Kevin Nash. I think you're mostly making the point about "unsolicited" advice, which makes sense- nothing worse than someone coming up and commenting on every move in a game with their own rules interpretations.

Perhaps I'm just naive. However, the appropriate response to being corrected by a passer-by when you claim that your ten-strong mob is fearless is to a) apologize to your opponent and b) thank the passerby for correcting your mistake. This is a game of toy soldiers after-all. If you can't handle it then you probably don't belong in the grown up world.

Black Fiend wrote:If you know that a TO will not make a call unless called upon you might as well cheat as much as you can get away with.

Win when you can, lose if you must, but always cheat.

olympia wrote:Perhaps I'm just naive. However, the appropriate response to being corrected by a passer-by when you claim that your ten-strong mob is fearless is to a) apologize to your opponent and b) thank the passerby for correcting your mistake. This is a game of toy soldiers after-all. If you can't handle it then you probably don't belong in the grown up world.

That is the appropriate response. We're not talking about the players behavior here as it's obviously wrong. We're talking about the spectator and what's appropriate for them. In a friendly game no big deal. In an RTT and unsolicited comment is frowned upon but probably not the end of the world. In a high level GT where lots of money or prize support is on the line it can get very tricky when random passer-by's start commenting on games within earshot. YMMV.

Observed behavior is an issue that can occasionally come up. At most events, the TO and any judges rarely actually wear black and white striped shirts. I know it is a silly example, but its hard to know for sure, especially if you are unfamiliar with the group affiliated with the tourney, if the guy that just walked up to your table and told you "you are doing it wrong" is actually a judge in any official capacity. And oddly enough, especially at game stores, there are no shortage of just random dudes wandering through the game store doling out tactical advice and making unsolicited observations about potential rules violations. That's not really acceptable.

If the issue is a rulebook read away from being resolved, then its likely that a player that has questions can just pause the game for a few seconds while he looks up the rule in his book or his opponents codex. If the dispute is more about distance, or another thing that isn't just a simple rules question "Do I have line of sight to tis vehicle here?" Then players should go get an actual unbiased judge, a spectator that is unaffiliated with the event could be a friend of one of the players, or otherwise have a biased opinion, and so his judgement can't carry any weight.

As a player, I'll be VERY careful not only to not mention any tactical observations to the players, but something i catch a ton of people doing that I am also very careful, is gathering around a table, and audibly conversing with another non-participant about the game. An example might be. "Hey, check this game out... This necron player is down by two kill points, but if he can win this combat here, he'll pick up two. This is a real close one." No one is trying to be a jerk, or tamper with the results of the game... but they may accidently be helping a player. its not malicious but its really dangerous. I generally lump it all in as "table talk". And when I hear it happening near my games. I say "hey guys, wtach the table talk." with a smile, people always realize what they are doing and say "oops, sorry"

I have a lot of friends that i see at tourneys. And when their games finish before mine, often times they'll float over and ask me "hows it going". Which sometimes is like asking a poker player during a hand.. "do you have good cards right now?" Thats a question I'll often just smile and say "we'll see when the game is over" Its not really a big deal, but you should probably not ask that question of an active player.

As a player when there is a rules discussion happening at an adjacent table, I never audibly interject... but sometimes a player will be in a rules dispute and will be scanning nearby player's faces for some kind of reaction. If his opponent is trying to sell him some serious BS, i MIGHT open my eyes a little wide and subtley shake my head 'no'. What I try to do instead of that, or after it continues is to remind both players that they are entitled to an official ruling from a judge and they should call him over. Since I know all of the judges in my own group, I will call them over pre-emptively, and say "these guys have a question for you."

RiTides wrote:g
However, I agree that unsolicited help is really aggravating as a player... even in friendly games. I had someone watching over my shoulder who had the movement rules wrong, and kept "corecting" me incorrectly . It was maddening! On the other hand, there's another person who knows his rules well that will chip in with things we're uncertain about, and it's greatly appreciated.

I played a game at the local shop a few months back, and there was a chap who wandered in and started trying to dictate the game like an umpire. He was right in some, wrong in others, but the constant interjecting every three sentences got on my nerves to the point where I just said to him, 'Y'know mate, its kind of our game here, not yours. I really don't need you reminding me of every single rule every step of the way. I do know how it works'. He then blushed, mumbled that it was a personality thing, and stopped doing it. Fair enough.

If you're passing by a game, hear something you know to be wrong, especially if you're a judge, I have no problem with a quick 'doesn't work like that mate' in passing. Its when someone camps at your table it gets frustrating.

In M:tG any player can freeze a game and call a judge if they see a rules violation. I think this is the best way of doing it. There are not nearly enough judges for them to be at every table at once and in this game, more than any other that I've seen, players tend to have an aversion to calling judges to settle rules disputes or if they are unsure of a rule.

I only comment when a player is cheating. I don't care if they think it's rude. If they tell me to butt out I get the to to kick them.

olympia wrote: This is a game of toy soldiers after-all.

I call them my boy barbies.

With all the people calling for common sense and a kind of "play it by ear" attitude, my hats off. There are so many permeations on potential rules problems that some discretion is always needed. The idea of fairness for time spent on table A versus table B is nice in theory but the sad reality is that nothing about the game is ultimately fair. Just look at terrain on the tables, no two tables are the same and can therefore be argued as inherently unfair. Heck some of the codices aren't on par with the others and therefore unfair as well. I know this analogy somewhat misses the mark but the point is valid. I am not saying that we shouldn't strive for fairness in the game but a rigid adherence to it is not simply just unfeasible but also, in the end, hurts the players and the game. In addition, simply waiting for a player to call you over as a TO assumes that every player knows the rules well enough to actually realize a rule is being broken. This is simply not the case and those players who may not know an opponent's codex well or even be unclear on a specific rule should be protected from either intentional or unintentional rules violations. Honestly (and I can't believe I'm saying this), I believe a TO should be required to point out a rules infraction just like Magic the Gathering. Tactics of course should never be discussed prior to the tournament or during it. After the final scores are tallied, I don't have a problem with everyone, including judges or TOs sitting around helping players improve or talking tactics.

Well said

I believe that it is really important that a tournament judge not interfere with a tournament game unless called over by the players. A game, even a tournament one, is a compact between those two players and they are free to play that game however they see fit. There are LOTS of rules which seem perfectly clear to one player but are ambiguous to other players.

If you are walking by as a judge and you witness a game being played (as you believe) incorrectly, if you stop to make that correction you may be making unintended changes in the game that neither player was prepared for.

Say for example that as a judge you believe that the rules do not allow a single model unit (like a Tervigon) to assault more than one enemy unit on their own. Walking by a table you see players doing just that...allowing a Tervigon to charge more than one enemy unit. You step in and 'correct' them, thereby stopping the Tervigon from charging multiple units.

The problem is, perhaps both players were already playing under that same assumption? Perhaps the other player had already gotten off several 'single model' assaults into multiple enemy units earlier in the game? Or even if that hasn't happened, the player moving his Tervigon up to that point was planning on being able to assault and so had made moves previously based on that assumption.

The point is: The players have the right to play the game they want, even if that means breaking or changing the rules.


Now, if you're walking by and you see a rule being BLATANTLY broken and especially when it seems as though one player is shoving that rule down the other player's throat, then there is no harm in pointing out the mistake that is being made...this is what the Ork Ld example would fall under.

But you have to be really, really clear on your rules and know when you're dealing with a completely clear situation and when you're dealing with a situation that has ANY kind of grey area to it.


In short: It is ultimately up to the players to know the rules and decide how they want to play the game including breaking or changing any rules they both agree to. Therefore, tournament organizers/judges should not get involved unless requested. However, blatant mistakes, especially those hoisted on one player by the other are fair game for an easy correction when witnessed...but again keeping in mind that any 'unwanted' ruling you make may end up retroactively giving one player the advantage of having been able to utilize that 'broken' rule earlier in the game when both players didn't know better.

Personally I try to stay out of things as much as possible as a tournament judge except when my aid is requested.

yakface wrote:In short: It is ultimately up to the players to know the rules and decide how they want to play the game including breaking or changing any rules they both agree to. Therefore, tournament organizers/judges should not get involved unless requested. However, blatant mistakes, especially those hoisted on one player by the other are fair game for an easy correction when witnessed...but again keeping in mind that any 'unwanted' ruling you make may end up retroactively giving one player the advantage of having been able to utilize that 'broken' rule earlier in the game when both players didn't know better.

Interesting take, Yak. Let me provide the actual scenario that sparked the question:
A Tyranid player is using the Swarmlord for the first time. He believes (incorrectly) that the Swarmlord can allow a Troops unit to Outflank, and selects a Tervigon to outflank (this is a property of a Hive Tyrant w/the Hive Commander upgrade; the Swarmlord's special rule allows a reroll of which side units can outflank on). The TO walks by on the turn the Tervigon arrives, scratches his head, and asks how the Tervigon is in the other player's backfield so quickly.

To me, this isn't the players "deciding" how they want to play the game - this is both players not knowing the rule (which is likely to cause continued problems all day long).

Yak may be getting at catching it after the fact, I'm not sure.

In the situation you saw, how much of the game would have to be played over again to correct the error? How would it have influenced deployment, gaunt spawning rolls, etc., if he had not outflanked his Tervigon? It's not that he should, or that the rule should not be corrected / gotten right, but interjecting mid-game after things have already happened that cannot be readily taken back ... CAN cause a lot of ill will (even if there's no "legitimate" reason to be upset about getting a rule wrong and having it fixed).

If you don't force the accidental offender to correct the error, then what does his opponent feel like, when something has happened against him that he now knows shouldn't have, but that isn't being taken back?

*shrug* ... morass of difficulty; it is perhaps one of those things best addressed on the case by case

MVBrandt wrote:Yak may be getting at catching it after the fact, I'm not sure.

In the situation you saw, how much of the game would have to be played over again to correct the error? How would it have influenced deployment, gaunt spawning rolls, etc., if he had not outflanked his Tervigon? It's not that he should, or that the rule should not be corrected / gotten right, but interjecting mid-game after things have already happened that cannot be readily taken back ... CAN cause a lot of ill will (even if there's no "legitimate" reason to be upset about getting a rule wrong and having it fixed).

If you don't force the accidental offender to correct the error, then what does his opponent feel like, when something has happened against him that he now knows shouldn't have, but that isn't being taken back?

In this case, I happened to catch it on the Tyranid player's turn 2, during the movement phase (and before the Tervigon started to munch on the Manticores it had just walked on to visit). Given the likely game-affecting outcome of letting such an error go, I decided I should correct it, even though the misperception of the ability had undoubtedly already had game-influencing effects from Deployment onward.

I got lucky - neither players seemed especially put-out by my interjection, and I know the Tyranid player fairly well (and he knows that I'm very familiar with 'Nids). But it did make me wonder, hence the topic.

Makes sense, and it's a really good topic. Would you have interjected if you hadn't known either of them?

I have to respectfully disagree with Yak, though I understand his position.

IMO players do not have a right to break the rules, even by mutual agreement.*

While we cannot catch every violation or mistake in a tournament, allowing them to go past when seen does more harm than good. It is entirely possible that such an error being witnessed is the first time that it happened in the game. It's also possible that the person breaking the rule knows very well what the correct rule is, and has browbeat or slipped one past their less-savvy opponent. Even if one player Consents, he has not necessarily done so in an Informed fashion.

Even if the error is made in all innocence, and most of the game has been played that way with both players being fine with it, it is likely to impact future games. If the player with the Tervigon is not corrected now he is likely to keep doing it going forward. And this may result in a rules dispute in one of the subsequent games. Again, as noted before, the Tervigon player could present the argument- "I did it in game 1, with the judge standing right there and watching, and nothing was said; so obviously I am in the right." In my experience, when I have seen and corrected an error like this, it is most frequently an honest mistake/lack of rules knowledge, and both players have appreciated the information.

---------------------

*I witnessed a somewhat dramatic example of this at a GW-sponsored Gladiator event for Warhammer Fantasy about 8 or 9 years ago. The focus of the GW Gladiator events, and the way they were advertised, was closely reminiscent of the first couple of years of Ard Boyz, only it required painting. Larger than normal games, with really out-there and frequently unbalanced and unfair scenarios, and absolutely no Comp or Sportsmanship scoring, even though those were the expected standard in the US at the time. One of its mottoes was "There's no Whining in Gladiator". If a scenario screws you, you suck it up and deal.

I was playing in one of these, and the final scenario was "Where did that damn wizard go?" It forced ALL wizards in EVERY army to start the game in reserve. Now, in 6th edition warhammer this was a pretty big deal. A friend of mine was running a Smoke & Fire-themed Empire list which was pretty much as much artillary and as many wizards as he could possibly take. He had almost half his army in wizards, and got smoked by Beastmen as a result of the scenario. But he laughed it off. No Whining in Gladiator.

At another table, in this case one of the top tables, two friends from the same store, one of them at the time the nationally-leading player in GW's Rogue Trader Hall of Heroes for WH, were paired up. The RT Hall of Heroes leader was running Vampire Counts; his friend, Brettonians. They decided that the scenario made it an unfair match-up, since all the Vampire characters/heroes are wizards, and would break the game. So they decided between themselves to play regular Pitched Battle instead. The result was that the Vampire player won. Looking at the scores immediately afterward, I could see that a nice guy (a Lizardman player) who had driven down all the way from Vermont would have won if the Bret player had won that game, or tied it. But that guy most likely lost out on his tournament win because two other players chose to break the rules of the tournament by mutual agreement.

Mannahnin wrote:The result was that the Vampire player won. Looking at the scores immediately afterward, I could see that a nice guy (a Lizardman player) who had driven down all the way from Vermont would have won if the Bret player had won that game, or tied it. But that guy most likely lost out on his tournament win because two other players chose to break the rules of the tournament by mutual agreement.

This is my issue- if you go with more of a "wild wild west" approach, everyone responsible for their own games unless an official ruling is asked for, I believe it can lead to unfair outcomes.

The example in question and a lot of the discussion I see above is "mutual agreement" by players, but honestly as a new tournament player, I'm sometimes taking my opponent's word for it. I'm not the fastest player and although I will stop the game to check a vital ruling I'm not sure of, I can't do it all the time. I really, really appreciate it when someone has my back in a tournament setting, and will say "No, you're not disrupting ranks with a monster in the flank" or some such.

I just feel that otherwise, more dominant/strong-willed players tend to roll the "nice guys", which I'm going to lump myself into. Or maybe "less confrontational" guys. It's not easy to look a veteran tourney player in the face who is seemingly fudging rules and call them out on it each time. I personally really appreciate a judge stepping in when there is a clear violation going on, even if we've seemingly "mutually agreed" to it- because honestly I may have agreed because I felt intimidated, pressured due to time, or nervous.

So that's my take on it... I would love for a judge/TO to help me out on rulings in a game, solicited or no. Usually I do not think I am doing anything borderline enough to feel like this will be a problem for me- it will more be a protection for me. There was another thread on "collusion" between players, and imho it's all too common... having the judges/TO's be proactive in making sure everything is above board is much better from my perspective.

Yeah I think I have to disagree yak, for no other reason than the precedent that is set. A judge stands there and watches it and says nothing, that player tries the same thing in the next game against someone who knows that he can't. The judge is called over. he can't really rule that the TMC can only charge a single unit now as he allowed it to dual charge before.

In a pickup game at a store, you are absolutely right. In a tournament, your social contract is to play the game according to the rules not just with the single guy you are facing, but every other player in the tournament.

It is the consistency of the competitive environment that draws me to it even though I steer far far away from the best net lists typically speaking. For me, consistency of rules lets me play the game not get into stupid arguments.

MVBrandt wrote:Would you have interjected if you hadn't known either of them?

Yes, and almost certainly in the same way (I quietly asked the Tyranid player how the Tervigon got there, and then reminded him that the Swarmlord couldn't make a Tervigon outflank; he & his opponent then worked it out, with the Tervigon simply arriving from normal reserve instead). I just had the advantage of knowing it wasn't going to ruffle his feathers ahead of time.

Mannahnin wrote:
Even if the error is made in all innocence, and most of the game has been played that way with both players being fine with it, it is likely to impact future games. If the player with the Tervigon is not corrected now he is likely to keep doing it going forward. And this may result in a rules dispute in one of the subsequent games. Again, as noted before, the Tervigon player could present the argument- "I did it in game 1, with the judge standing right there and watching, and nothing was said; so obviously I am in the right." In my experience, when I have seen and corrected an error like this, it is most frequently an honest mistake/lack of rules knowledge, and both players have appreciated the information.

I have seen this statement made several times in this thread that if a judge doesn't say something he's somehow giving silent consent that a rule being broken is 'okay' to do in future games.

Let's examine this proposed situation:

1) It assumes that the player breaking the rule knows what he's doing.
2) It assumes the judge who is witnessing the game knows that a rule is being broken.
3) It assumes that somehow the person breaking the rules knows the judge watching the game knows the rule is being broken and is purposely keeping his mouth shut.


The other issue is that so far the two examples brought up by others in this thread are situations where the rules being broken are situations where if you sat gamers down and had them re-read the rules 100 out of a 100 would agree on how to play the right way. The Ork codex is perfectly clear that Mobs OVER 10 men strong are Fearless and the Tyranid codex is perfectly clear that the Swarmlord does not have the Hive Commander special rule.

There is a MASSIVE difference between a rule that is 100% to clear to every single gamer who reads it (and is just being broken out of either pure ignorance or due to willful cheating) and the huge amount of rules that *don't* provide the same answer to 100% of the gamers who read them. The examples given also highlight rules affecting only a single player's army, as opposed to a broken rule that has been equally affecting both players up to that point in the game.

While there is certainly no harm in a judge pointing out a blatantly clear rule being broken if he catches it in the moment. But what happens in Janthkin's example if he doesn't catch the issue until turn 3 or 4 when the Tervigon has already been on the table moving and doing things for several turns?

And even more tricky is for a tournament judge to identify when they're dealing with a 100% rules call vs. a 60%/40% type of rules call. Players have a right to play the game as they interpret it, period. They play their game. If a clear mistake is being made then its one thing, but its another thing entirely to have a judge come over mid-game and change how they've been playing up to that point.

As a judge, you haven't been watching the whole game (or at least you shouldn't have been if you've got a fair number of entrants) and you don't know the context of the situation you're stepping in to solve of your own accord. You're stopping down the game and potentially creating an argument as the players try to figure out what is the retroactively 'fair' way to play now that they realize they've been playing wrong the whole time.

In any decent sized event it just isn't feasible to have tournament judges walking around and poking their noses randomly into games to correct potential 'errors'. While it easy to pick a really simple example like Ork Ld and assume that the judge just happens to be walking by at the right moment to fix things without issues, the reality of a full-sized event is that if judges were really tasked with stepping into games that they believed they were witnessing rules being broken more often than not they would be causing way more consternation between players then helping them. Because stepping into the middle of a game when players aren't asking for assistance ONLY works when the rule your correcting is crystal clear...and the hard part about 40K is that what seems like a crystal clear rule to you (even as the rules judge) may not seem as crystal clear to the players.


So yes, stepping in to correct really blatant rules mistakes will always be acceptable. But in general the policy for any decently-sized event needs to be that the tournament judges mind their own business unless asked for their assistance.

And just having a tournament judge in the area when a rule is being broken does not set any kind of precedence. Lord knows, if I was watching the Tyranid game that Janthkin posted about as a judge, I wouldn't have realized that the Swarmlord didn't have Hive Commander and therefore there is no way I could have even corrected the mistake even though I saw it. But me not correcting the mistake in no way gives precedent that the mistake is okay to make in future games...if the player or his opponent figures out the rule was broken later then that's exactly the way the rule would need to be played in future games. My silence as a rules judge on the matter changes nothing.

(snip)...But that guy most likely lost out on his tournament win because two other players chose to break the rules of the tournament by mutual agreement.

If the players were colluding to change the outcome of the game in order to benefit one player or the other for the overall tournament standings then that is collusion and is obviously unacceptable.

However, if they both legitimately wanted to win the game to the best of their ability but didn't want to play that scenario then frankly that is their call to make. No tournament judge or organizer could or should walk over to their table and force players to play a game in a way they don't enjoy, ever.

I can count dozens of times in the years I've seen players purposely ignore tournament scenarios they've felt are ridiculously stupid and frankly that's their right so long as both players agree.

I agree with most of what you said but participating in a tournament is accepting the missions for what they are and not modifying them or playing a completely different mission - it's too easy for a TFG to strong arm a noob into playing something different that gives them an unfair advantage. Everyone should play the missions as set out by the TO.

I have to agree with Yak. Sorry Ragnar : )

I’ll preface these comments are squarely aimed at a large venue event. I’m not talking about league night or your local B&M store event as those may have different considerations.

It is very dangerous ground interjecting into a game uninvited by either player playing it. Opening that door for your judging staff creates a whole host of potential problems at a large venue event. In most cases you have not observed but snap shot of the game in progress. How certain are you of what you have heard or think you observed? Do you know what has been agreed to by the players themselves? Interjecting stops game play, causes confusion and potentially angst in a game that otherwise might have proceeded uneventfully to a successful conclusion. It is not a matter to be taken lightly.

Once I witnessed two players having a very agreeable game without incident next to me, that was until a judge uninvited in the game pointed out that elements of terrain on the board conferred a different save than what as being claimed.. The judge was technically “correct”. However, it was bottom of turn 4 and both players had “agreed” that the terrain elements in question conferred a certain cover save. Suddenly the opponent that had everything to gain by the change and the previous turn had just taken a bunch of saves under the previous understanding was insistent on it being a revised to his advantage. The judge now had opened a big can of problems and was pretty much stuck as he was the one that pointed out the terrain issue. Push comes to shove and I get brought into what now was not a very pleasant environment and we had to stop the flow of our game and speak to what we "heard" discussed. So a game that was agreeable, and going smoothly with both players having a good time quickly turned into a disaster with both players leaving that game in a foul mood. Additionally I am sure it did not have a positive effect on the experience of their next round opponents as well. Not an outcome you want as a player or an event organizer.

Top it off at a large venue you also have equal scaled up judging staffs, these folks typically have people they know, players they consider friends, and some they or the event might have had a past history. Allowing rampant interjecting into games by judging staffs would most certainly create a perception of some players feeling targeted or unfairly treated rightly or wrongly by the staff.

Here is the dirty little truth. Most games of 40K that are played are played with mistakes by players, even so called "top veteran" players. Most of those mistakes are honest mistakes for a variety of reasons. I can watch most games of 40K and be able to point out a number of errors more often than not. You would not want me watching your game and interjecting every time you did something wrong and you certainly would not want me standing over your table while your playing someone I know (I certainly know a large percentage of the tournament crowd) and pointing out each and every mistake for 6 turns. Even if I did it fairly between you and your opponent both players are going to feel unfairly targeted because they are going to remember the calls more vividly that affected them or one particular call that went against them at some critical point in the game regardless of the balance of calls over the course of the game. That hardly sounds like a fun time.

It is simple really, a rules judges job is to resolve disputes between players. A rules judge like a real judge is not a policeman. Their job is not to police the hall and insure all players are at all times playing by the rules. It’s your job to adhere and play by the rules. If your opponent is moving 7 inches, it is your job to bring it to your opponents attention. If your opponent is picking up successes instead of failures it is your job to bring it up to your opponent. If your opponent is breaking the rules, it is your job to address it with your opponent. It is only when you and your opponent can not resolve an issue should a rule judge be involved.

That said we certainly keep an eye out for blatant rule abuse, cheating, slow play, patterns of abuse or aggressive play. Judges confer with one another over the event, the weekend and across event staffs. We keep an eye on players we have had complaints about or have witnessed potential issues. We take people aside and have conversations with folks we believe are out of line. We track a number of those things over the weekend and from year to year. Santa keeps a list and so do we. In other words ...

Afrikan Blonde wrote:I agree with most of what you said but participating in a tournament is accepting the missions for what they are and not modifying them or playing a completely different mission - it's too easy for a TFG to strong arm a noob into playing something different that gives them an unfair advantage. Everyone should play the missions as set out by the TO.

I see your point, yak, and you're right- it sounds like we were talking about rules that were 100% clear and obviously in error, not ones that are "up for interpretation" (which are many).

However, I agree with the quote above- I don't think players agreeing to play a scenario other than the one laid out is OK at all. It does lead to some players strong-arming others... I saw this in a tourney where one player rearranged all the terrain to his advantage, then asked the other player if it was OK. What were they going to say? In the packet, it clearly said terrain was fixed... but the guy who moved it was rather intimidating, and got away with it with his opponent's "consent".

People might say that it's better to have the kind of environment where everyone is responsible for their own game and that's it... personally I just like to have a little more support if possible from the organizer/TO. Especially over something I can't control, like players at another table agreeing to play something other than the laid-out scenario, and possibly thereby gaining an advantage- particularly if the scenario made it hard to achieve a massacre, while the one they choose to play makes it easier (meaning one player or the other from that table will likely advance ahead of our table).

The rules are the rules and all that... but I do see your take on it and I imagine that in a large venue a lot of this is really beyond your control, depending on the judge-to-player ratio.
I'm thinking of smaller events where it is more manageable, personally, as that has been my experience as a player. Somehow, I had the expectation that things would be more strict / by the book at a larger event or GT, which I'm planning to attend a few of this summer... and it's a little bit disconcerting to hear that apparently it's not, or might even be the opposite.

OK thats how we do it here in germany:

If its a tournament at a FLGS most of the time the owner is the TO. So he will not spend most of the time controlling what the players do, he will be more interested in selling his stuff and (to be honest) most players know the rules better than him...
And he knows that and will be passive.

If it is a private greater tournament we will have threads in our forums about how to deal with certain grey zone rules. Then we make a public clarification there (after a hard fight though ). So we all have rules we are playing. But of course the TO will have a judge ready for questions that were missed or difficult LOS/Range issues.
But then both players know that this is a valid subjective call and will accept it without question.

If it is a smaller private game most of the time the players get along, and even help themselves (asking other players next to them).

So to make a conclusion: The TO here is extremely passive.